Monday, April 25, 2016

DAVENPORT IA - BARB ICKES - THE QUAD-CITY TIMES - INTERVIEW WITH PLASTIC SURGEON DR. BENJAMIN VAN RAALTE - "IT WASN'T UNTIL THE PIT BULLS BECAME POPULAR THAT I STARTED SEEING THE REALLY VICIOUS ATTACKS - IN 2016, WE NEED TO SAY WE'RE DONE BREEDING PIT BULLS - IT'S PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO BE A WEAPON"

(Louis Brems, Quad-City Times)

Dr. Benjamin Van Raalte, plastic Surgeon points to a scar of a 6-year-old who was attacked by a pit bull. The patient required an initial surgical repair and two surgical revisions. Van Raalte, who wants to ban the breeding of pit bulls, has repaired the faces of 100 people bitten or mauled by dogs and more than half were pit bull bites.

BY Barb Ickes - THE QUAD-CITY TIMES - (Events and information from Davenport, Bettendorf, Moline, Rock Island and the Quad Cities Area of Iowa and Illinois.)

Every time a Quad-Citian was taken to the emergency room with a dog-bite wound, a plastic surgeon who was called to fix it asked about the breed.

During his 27-year career, Dr. Benjamin Van Raalte detected a trend.

"It wasn't until the pit bulls (became popular) that I started seeing the really vicious attacks," the Bettendorf plastic surgeon said Monday. "The worst pit bull mauling I ever saw was an incident in which a dog bit off the entire cheek of a 5-year-old boy."

Of the severe bites he has treated, Van Raalte estimates, more than half have been the result of a pit bull attack. The high number of serious injuries, along with the appalling and increasingly popular "sport" of dog fighting have convinced him the time has come for an all-out ban on pit bull breeding.

"I'm just saying it's time to stop breeding them," he said. "Yes, there are lots of lovable pit bulls. I'm not advocating putting down pit bulls.

"They're primarily bred for fighting. In 2016, we need to say we're done breeding pit bulls. It's primary purpose is to be a weapon. It's doing what it's supposed to do."

Despite insistence by many pit bull owners that their dogs never would bite, the breed often surprises them. Too often.

Just last week, a newborn baby was killed by a pit bull in California. The dog owners obviously loved and trusted the dog, because they had it in their bed with them and their 3-day-old son. When the dog was startled by a noise, it came into contact with and killed the baby, police said.

Although he wasn't commenting on the most recent death, Van Raalte said pit bulls sometimes simply do not know their own strength.

"When dogs are annoyed, they nip," he said. "Mom dogs nip at puppies. But puppy skin is loose, and they have fur.

"It's a leave-me-alone warning. When kids don't take note of the warning, their face is at dog level."

Other times, pit bulls are simply abiding by the hard-wired tendency of certain demonstrably aggressive terrier breeds. While many breeds of dog can be intolerant of other dogs, those bred to fight can do more damage than others.

Van Raalte has had experience with pit bulls outside the operating room. When his Shetland sheepdog was mauled by an off-leash dog at a Bettendorf park, his dog had to be stapled back together.

"And they (the dog owners) didn't offer to pay," he said. "They just high-tailed it out of there. When a pit bull clamps down on a person, it tears away the tissue."

Dog experts say that pit bulls do not have any special biting powers. The damage they do is attributable to their personalities. When they're onto something, they're committed.

"Even labs, as big as they are, don't do that kind of damage," Van Raalte said of his dog-bite experience. "The only time I had a bad lab bite, the dog turned out to be sick."

He is not the only one keeping statistics, of course. Regardless where you look, dogs identified as a type of pit bull are far and away the worst offenders when it comes to serious bites. They often are responsible for more serious injuries than all other breeds combined.

It is for the dogs' sake and ours that Van Raalte wants to see an all-out ban on future breeding.

"If you have 100 drugs that treat high blood pressure, and one of those drugs caused half the deaths, it would be taken off the market," he said.

Given the disproportionate number of deaths and injuries caused by pit bulls and the fact so many are bred to be fight-to-the-death gladiators, Van Raalte says it's time to move on.

"It's so disheartening," he said. "Victims and their families think, since a plastic surgeon is called, there will be no scar. I have to tell them there will be a scar.

"The dog fighting is cruel and unusual to the animals. There are a lot of other dogs out there — a lot of good choices.

"If we as dog owners don't figure out how to get rid of the bad actors ... it could get to the point you can't afford to have a dog because the insurance will be too high. Who wants that?"

1 comment:

"Dog experts say that pit bulls do not have any special biting powers. The damage they do is attributable to their personalities. When they're onto something, they're committed."

What dog experts said that pit bulls don't have any special biting powers? Their personalities? REALLY?! That's like saying a tiger doesn't have sharp claws that can tear your flesh right off, they just have big paws. COME ON DOG EXPERTS!

Pit bulls have a distinct biting style, they grab, shake, and hold. Normal dogs bite, then retreat. I'm sure if a normal dog was being attacked and biting was it's only defense, it would continue to bite until the threat was gone.

Otherwise, I absolutely agree with the article. We can prevent future plastic surgery by simply banning pit bulls. Breed specific legislation, grandfather in current pit bulls, let them die of old age, and stop bringing new pit bulls into the world. SO EASY! SO SANE! SO HUMANE!

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.